That gets to the heart of the problem, actually. People use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends, yet Facebook still systematically pushes inflammatory content on them, despite that not being the "reason" people are there. And, eventually, it gets a surprisingly high percentage of people to respond to that inflammatory content, thus furthering the cycle.
The average number of friends that a Facebook user has is 338. Out of those, I'm sure there's quite a few in every person's group of "friends" that posts some pretty inflammatory content. I, for example, have over 800 friends, despite the fact that I haven't posted anything in about 10 years, I don't go on the site more than once every three months or so, and the only thing I use my Facebook account for is messaging my significant other because they mainly use Messenger to stay in contact with their friends. Yet, when I go on for my quarterly check-in because my SO wants me to like a photo, it's nothing but inflammatory posts. I quickly unfriend them and move on, but it still seems to mostly be those types of posts.
i generally use the unfollow button for people who post a lot of stuff I don't like. I got to the point where its really stable, I mostly see what I want, funny memes, pictures of my friends doing things, etc. I use to have 800 friends, went on several purges to get it to 250 - much more managable
The idea that being barraged by insane politics is separate from staying in touch with friends and family is contrary to most people’s experience of national and religious holidays.
Rather than shying from it, dreading Thanksgiving, or hiding behind an eggshell thin wall of group think, people should learn to grow a spine. Learn to defend your own opinions, stop getting overly agitated that someone has their own conflicting ones, and generally stop caring when people disagree with you.
I’m no doctor but I’m fairly certain you’ll live longer.
You seem to live in a different world than mine. In mine, social media would be much less of a problem if people tended to shy away from online confrontation. The online/social media problem is in large part one of people defending their own opinions too aggressively.
> You seem to live in a different world than mine.
I liked the more inflammatory initial hot take of “What kind of world do you live in?” better. It goes better with my speak your mind and damn the consequences philosophy.
I wasn’t talking about online. I meant in person communication. It’s likely even hard for people these days but once you get used to the idea that it’s okay to offend people, you realize you’re never really offended either.
> In mine, social media would be much less of a problem if people tended to shy away from online confrontation. The online/social media problem is in large part one of people defending their own opinions too aggressively.
Having any sort of personal accountability for social media defeats the purpose. It should be an outlet for the id. Be the craziest you and assume everyone else is as well.
Really? Because my parents are probably among the most tech-illiterate people I know (love you, Mom) but I've had to talk with them multiple times because they asked me if such-and-such or so-and-so was true or real and it was the result of completely fake FB groups or accounts posting bullshit that they read on there.
I'm lucky that I have such a good relationship with my family that they're willing to come to me as a source of truth for some of those things.
> The vast majority of FB users use it for staying in touch with friends and family.
Out of personal experience it's the opposite. I even talked about a chrome plugin to get rid of everything but friends' activities and they said they primarily use it for just scrolling through news and memes and shit.
there is that podcast called rabbit hole (by nytimes) which was very revealing to me.
i started using youtube before it became a popular platform and never in my life have i ever watched a conspiracy theory video on youtube! i don't think i have ever been recommended one either. i only hear about them in the news.
so hearing that person talk about how youtube recommended videos upon videos to them was really surprising. there were names that i have never even heard of.
so yes, social platforms changing people's view is real and a problem.
People tend to bring this up as some sort of forceful counter-example, but the printing press contributed significantly to religious sectarianism in Europe, fuelling the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century which killed over a third of the German population.
Books might not have been burned, but about 50.000 'witches' did.
A rapid increase in the dissemination of information in systems that have no mechanism to tolerate them is no trivial matter.
Witch burning pre-dates the printing press. Might want to look up the 13th century some time. Didn't know there were any anti-printing press advocates left out there. I thought y'all died off during the Enlightenment? As far as sectarianism goes, the Catholic hegemony was never going to last forever. And Europe was plagued with sectarian violence for thousands of years. Free exchange of information is the one thing that eventually got them to come together.
Books can be publicly scrutinized, facebook feed will only reach it’s targeted audience. I think a more apt comparison is pamphlets at a rally. And even a rally is absolutely scrutinized—or even stopped by the police—if they are found to distribute illegal, radicalizing, or dog whistling material.
In real life there’s a loophole to get around this kind of scrutiny: religion. It doesn’t matter which one really. But if it’s religious and you don’t discriminate against people in obvious ways, you have much wider latitude to say eyebrow-raising things in public.
Seems like that works online too, now that I mention it.
If the cost (monetary and one’s credibility) of publishing a Social post matched that of publishing a book, we wouldn’t be here discussing this.
If we allow anyone with opposing thumbs to spew garbage online, platform have some responsibility to have some limits or require making source/author public
Yeah that's how freedom of speech works. Listen, you don't police private conversations among friends. Not in America. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm sure I could comb over your personal beliefs and find all sorts of garbage, including what you're saying now Corporate regulation of speech is a losing proposition for society. Period.
My only ask is that you see the difference between free-speech as intended in the constitution vs free-speech under an unverifiable and easily forged online pseudonym. You may not even be defending free speech of an American citizen/resident
Free speech under an unverifiavle and easily forged obline pseudonym is worth the cost of the speech. If reading my $0 speech incites you to do something stupid or illegal, bad on me, but good luck enforcing that; in the meantime you did something stupid or illegal and will have to live with the consequences.
If people continue to act on information without regard to its source or veracity, and we need to rely on the platforms to sort it out, we're in some deep shit. The telephone company never comes on the line and says 'Hey harikb, your friend is full of it, what your friend said is totally untrue' but somehow we expect that of today's communications platforms. If the telephone company was monitoring the content of your calls, you'd be rightfully pissed.
Of course, maybe these platforms could stop showing me random garbage from random people that aren't on my list, and weren't meaningfully interacted with by my list. (What gets shown on FB because someone I know liked a corporate page 5 years ago is like huh???)
Disclosure: I used to work at WhatsApp, including while it was part of Facebook; my opinions are my own.
I believe free speech is a human right. Facebook itself is not built up around pseudonyms, that would be Twitter moreso. But the founding members of the U.S. regularly wrote in pseudonyms in the Federalist Papers. Ben Franklin also regularly wrote in pseudonyms.
I don't like social media, as it exists today. I think it's a toxic form of communication.
But I'd rather people just realize that and migrate off it and towards chat rooms, group chats, discussion forums, etc.
I'd be fine with forcing social media companies to regularly warn users of addiction and to provide built in and highly visible tools for tuning it out.
The cynical framing we encounter on HN isn't actually representative of the experience of most FB users.